To view a PDF of this document, click here.
One of the greatest bioethical challenges in the modern world is the lack of a clear consensus about the need for scientific research to be oriented by robust ethical guidelines and safeguards. It is astonishing to me that there is so little outcry over biomedical research using and killing human beings at their earliest stage of development For example, the International Society for Stem Cell Research in 2021 notably dropped its rule that no human embryos could be experimented upon and allowed to grow in labs past 14 days. In fact, new human genetic manipulation research, “clone and kill” research, and other experimentation on human embryos are set to explode in the coming decades, if good bioethicists and legislators do not intervene quickly and successfully.
Fundamentally, the problem comes down to what questions scientists and researchers ask themselves, and where their incentives lie. Just as in the age of discovery, when explorers won fame and fortune for being the first to plant a flag on a part of the world not previously known by Europeans, modern doctors and academics can become famous and receive enormous grant funding for discovering new scientific techniques or being the first to successfully alter the human genome in a certain way. Many scientists aggressively push the limits of what can be done, rather than reflecting if that kind of technological intervention is consistent with the respect due to human persons in light of their unique dignity.
Saint John Paul II expressed the wisdom of Catholic teaching well in his encyclical letter Redemptor hominis:
“The essential meaning of this ‘kingship’ and ‘dominion’ of man over the visible world, which the Creator himself gave man for his task, consists in the priority of ethics over technology, in the primacy of the person over things, and in the superiority of spirit over matter.”
There is a great deal of wisdom to unpack in this one sentence. This holy pope was alarmed by the way ethics was a decreasing concern for researchers. He saw that material objects or the desire for material prosperity increasingly took on more importance than the rights of human persons. This becomes glaringly manifest when it comes to the exploitation of human embryos whose personhood is completely ignored or denied by many researchers. It is also true for the poor and sick who are not “economically productive” enough to matter in a hedonistic and materialistic secular society. The culture of death has no problem with the extreme exploitation of people for labor or eliminating those who are a “drag” on social finances, due to the costs of caring for them.
In a letter sent to an international conference on science and medicine, John Paul II said that there is nothing wrong with seeking an “appropriate return on investment” in the biomedical field. He did point out, however, the danger that desire for money could overshadow service to humanity:
“In other words, there is a risk that science-based businesses and health care structures can be set up not in order to provide the best possible care for people in accordance with their human dignity, but in order to maximize profits and increase business, with a predictable lowering in the quality of service for those unable to pay. In this way there is created in the field of science and medicine a conflict of interest between the investigation and correct treatment of illnesses — which is what scientific and medical research is all about — and the financial objective of making a profit.”
Putting ethical concerns first over the accolades and money that can be obtained through scientific breakthroughs and new products can help prevent trampling on human dignity and treating or using people as means rather than acknowledging them as ends in themselves.
We are living in the midst of the fastest expansion of scientific knowledge and capabilities in history. This means that bioethical concerns have to be addressed frequently as the applications of new technology create novel ethical concerns. There is no doubt that clear and enforceable ethical limits on certain kinds of biomedical research are essential. We cannot rely on the moral integrity of researchers to police themselves. Similarly, economic incentives can clearly distort or even completely warp the priorities of pharmaceutical companies. Ask yourselves what a typical big pharma company is likely to do if given the choice between developing a new drug for erectile dysfunction or a medication to treat a disease that primarily affects the poorest children in the world? It is sad to reflect that the one that is sure to generate more profits will almost certainly win out over the best ethical product in boardrooms and management decision-making. We must strive for a strong societal commitment to serve the common good in scientific research that is expressed in laws and regulations promoting respect for human dignity in the biomedical field
Joseph Meaney received his PhD in bioethics from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome. His doctoral program was founded by the late Elio Cardinal Sgreccia and linked to the medical school and Gemelli teaching hospital. His dissertation topic was Conscience and Health Care: A Bioethical Analysis.
Dr. Meaney earned his master’s in Latin American studies, focusing on health care in Guatemala, from the University of Texas at Austin. He graduated from the University of Dallas with a BA in history and a concentration in international studies. The Benedict XVI Catholic University in Trujillo, Peru, awarded Dr. Meaney an honorary visiting professorship. The University of Dallas bestowed on him an honorary doctorate in Humane Letters in 2022.
